What percentage of smokers actually get lung cancer?
Based on these BS answers I say that smoking causes cancer is propaganda. So how many non smokers get lung cancer? Is tobacco smoke the only cancer causing agent in the air? And yes I have had a relative die of lung cancer. He smoked but he also worked in a shop and the fumes could have caused the cancer.
Cancer - 15 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
0.01
2 :
Most. The rest dye from complications of smoking. You should quit, and encourage your loved ones to quit as well.
3 :
Research shows that even among long-term, heavy smokers, the risk of getting lung cancer can vary dramatically -- from less than 1 percent to a whopping 15 percent. The risk of getting lung cancer was most heavily influenced by age, duration of smoking and how much a person smoked.
4 :
pretty much all eventually. it is the smoke that irritates the lung tissue and carries carcinogens. this causes cancer.
5 :
Idk but enough to make me not smoke.
6 :
i read 15 percent at this link http://www.lifeclinic.com/fullpage.aspx?prid=512291&type=1 and that was in 2003. that's 6 years ago. i wouldn't doubt if that has doubled or tripled since then. you should quit. I work in a medical clinic. i used to work in a Lung Specialist clinic... you don't want to end up there.
7 :
Even one percent is to much when it is someone you love and I do know it is a lot higher than that. It has taken more then one percent of the people I love who smoked, actually.
8 :
i think around 75%
9 :
To be able to answer that, we need accurate figures on how many people smoke. As it is we can only make educated guesses. What has been established is that 99% of people with small cell lung cancer and 80% of people with other forms of lung cancer are smokers or ex-smokers. Given that smoking also leads to emphasema, stroke, heart disease, other forms of cancer etc, it is worthbeing a non-smoker or ex-smoker and reducing your risk.
10 :
Now this is a tough one because you may not present with cancer as a direct link back to smoking. For example - someone could have quit ten years ago and yet the chemicals that were in the cigarettes you smoked have weakened the lungs and made them more likely to develop cancers and other serious lung problems such as COPD. Not cancer, but as deadly. So when you develop the cancer, you may longer be a smoker..... Also, what about those around you who are forced to smoke because then inhale your smoke? They can develop cancer too. However, taking all the above as exclusions, cold hard facts are: 30% of all cancer deaths are attributed to smoking 90% of all lung cancers can be directly attributed to smoking 114,000 people die in the UK each year as a direct result of cigarette smoking. It is the highest rate of preventable deaths in any group. Scary huh http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/smoking/
11 :
Dana Reeves, Christopher Reeves widow died of lung cancer. she was a non smoker. As an ex-smoker, i can tell you that inhaling second hand smoke is for more dangerous than you think. when you inhale, you inhaling filtered smoke. second hand smoke is unfiltered. Genetics also play a factor. if a non smoking relative gets lung cancer chances are you could too. having said that there are lots of carcinogenic agents in the air, radon, nickel, benzene, arsenic, asbestos, the list goes on and on. but usually people think of smoking as the greatest cause of lung cancer.
12 :
142%
13 :
Cancer isn't "caused", it is "contributed to". We are constantly bombarded with carcinogens, some worse than others. That doesn't mean we'll get cancer, it just increases the odds of it. Throwing a handful of gravel at a target increases your odds of hitting it over throwing a few stones, but still doesn't guarantee a hit. By smoking, you're just increasing your odds. You may get lucky and never get it. Your relative was at a very high risk by smoking and the shop fumes, and that's how statistics work - increasing the probability of something happening means it is more likely but not assured to happen. Propaganda in favor of who? Tobacco generates massive amounts of tax revenue and is a staple industry in this country. Who stands to benefit from people smoking less? The medical insurance industry surely doesn't have the kind of lobbying money and influence that the tobacco industry has.
14 :
There is chemicals we breath in and food we eat every day that cause cancer more than smoking - Soya contains various toxic chemicals and giving it to babies is the same as giving them 5 birth control pills of oestrogen every day. Car exhaust fumes has a higher cancer causing chemical than smoking does, Radon Gases cause cancer, alcohol cause cancer, Pepsi and coca cola have chemicals that can destroy rust? Most food and confectionery contain E numbers, E131, 142, 210-217,230.239, can cause cancer, As for your original question I am not sure how many smokers get lung cancer but non smokers, although not as many as smokers can get lung cancer, smoking and all of the above don't just cause lung cancer, they can be the cause of several types of cancer, Google it and find out
15 :
The American Lung Association estimates roughly 90 %, the National Cancer Institute estimates 87%. Alas! I have a friend who was diagnosed with lung cancer and starts chemo tomorrow. She has smoked all her life, and she's in her early 40s now. Asbestos and other inhaled irritants account for more lung cancer. My mother was director of the local American Cancer Society for years, so I've grown up with statistics of this nature. No, it isn't propaganda, but I wish it was.
Read more discussions :
